Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,423 Year: 3,680/9,624 Month: 551/974 Week: 164/276 Day: 4/34 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?
Casey Powell 
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 283 (374409)
01-04-2007 1:36 PM


Evolution doesn't even have anything to say at this point about how the very first single-celled organisms came into being. There isn't any evidence one way or another, so until there is, it's all speculative. However there's loads of evidence that from the first few types of single-celled organisms to come about, all other life later sprang.
The Left Coaster: Comment on Frist Wants Intelligent Design Taught Alongside Evolution In Schools
This is what most Evolutionists sound like. So.....is Evolution a-causal (to of course say that the cause is that there is no cause, would be nonsense)? Or does it have a cause? By the way, Evolution doesn't have anything to say about how life came from the first single-celled organisms into being.
You'll notice a direct contradiction afterwards, when she says there is a load of evidence that life sprang from a single cell in the next sentence after she mentions its speculation.
This is blatantly false, but mostly how Evolutionists present their theory.
Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by cavediver, posted 01-04-2007 1:51 PM Casey Powell has not replied

  
Casey Powell 
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 283 (374410)
01-04-2007 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by AdminNosy
07-19-2006 8:55 PM


Re: sources of facts
Through Ad Hominem attacks I'm sure he will try.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by AdminNosy, posted 07-19-2006 8:55 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Casey Powell 
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 283 (374419)
01-04-2007 1:56 PM


Please demonstrate how this is not contradictory, otherwise, its obvious that we are justified in rejecting your conclusion:
You'll notice a direct contradiction afterwards, when she says there is a load of evidence that life sprang from a single cell in the next sentence after she mentions its speculation.
I think if you actually read what you quoted you will see that there is no contradiction
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolution doesn't even have anything to say at this point about how the very first single-celled organisms came into being. There isn't any evidence one way or another, so until there is, it's all speculative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and then
lo and behold there is evidence for the 1st claim being true! No speculation at all!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However there's loads of evidence that from the first few types of single-celled organisms to come about, all other life later sprang.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to mention, the how is answered in the 2nd claim as well! So Evolution has begun to explain the how (life sprang from the first few types of single-celled organisms) from the 1st claim. Thats also contradictory.
So Abiogenesis would be both a part of Evolution and not a part of Evolution at the same time in the same sense, right guys?
Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.
Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by cavediver, posted 01-04-2007 3:22 PM Casey Powell has not replied
 Message 243 by cavediver, posted 01-04-2007 3:45 PM Casey Powell has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024